What you got?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Personal foul has to be for contact. Unsporting is for non-contact acts.

What about contact acts vs. non-players? Like, say, a player slugs an official. That can't be a PF, can it? So it must be UC.

I think that's likely what you had in the previously stated scenario: contact by a player vs. a non-player that might be a personal foul (unnecessary roughness) if committed by player vs. player, but would have to be either unsportsmanlike conduct or nothing if committed by a player vs. a sub in the opposing bench area.

If the player(s) in the bench area are deemed to be participating illegally by interfering with play even if out of bounds, do they then instantly become players & hence eligible to be personally fouled? Could the same be true of a trainer, coach, towel boy...?

So I turned to the Fed rules for clarif'n, and came up with...mud. I see unnecessary roughness (contact that is unnecessary and may tend to promote roughness) is identified, like most personal fouls, in terms of contact with an "opponent"...and the rules never define "opponent". I was hoping either the Team Designation or Participation provisions would clarify the matter, but unless someone can explain otherwise, they don't. It is possible for nonplayers to illegally participate by committing acts against an "opponent", but it doesn't seem to say anything about vice versa in cases where the opponent is a player. One might assume that if X is an opponent of Y, Y must be an opponent of X, but that's a thin reed to lean on in this case. And if makes a difference here because whether the action by the player who has unintentionally left the field and gotten embroiled in a situation among the other team's subs is ruled a personal foul or an unsportsmanlike act matters in terms of penalty enforcement. My hunch would be that any fouls by partisans of either team in that situation would have to be considered UC rather than PF.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What about contact acts vs. non-players? Like, say, a player slugs an official. That can't be a PF, can it? So it must be UC.

OK, but that has nothing to do with the play described. No official was harmed in this play.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I think that's likely what you had in the previously stated scenario: contact by a player vs. a non-player that might be a personal foul (unnecessary roughness) if committed by player vs. player, but would have to be either unsportsmanlike conduct or nothing if committed by a player vs. a sub in the opposing bench area.

If I taunt someone, it can be USC. And PF apply to both players and non-players.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

If the player(s) in the bench area are deemed to be participating illegally by interfering with play even if out of bounds, do they then instantly become players & hence eligible to be personally fouled? Could the same be true of a trainer, coach, towel boy...?

Well you cannot be a player unless you are one of the 22 in the game. Non-players are anyone including coach, substitute, attendant or replaced player. And the PF Rule 10-4 applies to players and non-players.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

So I turned to the Fed rules for clarif'n, and came up with...mud. I see unnecessary roughness (contact that is unnecessary and may tend to promote roughness) is identified, like most personal fouls, in terms of contact with an "opponent"...and the rules never define "opponent". I was hoping either the Team Designation or Participation provisions would clarify the matter, but unless someone can explain otherwise, they don't. It is possible for nonplayers to illegally participate by committing acts against an "opponent", but it doesn't seem to say anything about vice versa in cases where the opponent is a player. One might assume that if X is an opponent of Y, Y must be an opponent of X, but that's a thin reed to lean on in this case. And if makes a difference here because whether the action by the player who has unintentionally left the field and gotten embroiled in a situation among the other team's subs is ruled a personal foul or an unsportsmanlike act matters in terms of penalty enforcement. My hunch would be that any fouls by partisans of either team in that situation would have to be considered UC rather than PF.

You could have two fouls here. You could have a PF for the "chest bump" and the getting in the face ans saying things to your opponent. It is just a matter of if you want to call both or one or the other.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well you cannot be a player unless you are one of the 22 in the game. Non-players are anyone including coach, substitute, attendant or replaced player. And the PF Rule 10-4 applies to players and non-players.

But the spot for a personal foul by a player is different from that for either an unsportsmanlike or nonplayer foul (i.e. a foul by a nonplayer).

What I want to know is, is it possible to commit a personal foul against someone who is in some sense an opponent, but is a nonplayer? If so, how do you know?

[ump33]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But the spot for a personal foul by a player is different from that for either an unsportsmanlike or nonplayer foul (i.e. a foul by a nonplayer).

What I want to know is, is it possible to commit a personal foul against someone who is in some sense an opponent, but is a nonplayer? If so, how do you know?

I would say Yes, it is possible to commit a PF against a nonplayer.

Rule 9-4-3g ... No player or nonplayer shall make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary and which incites roughness. The term "opponent" is identified in Rule 2-43. It says nothing about the opponent has to be one of the 11 players only that the opponent is "the defense, B or R".

In the OP, Originally Posted by OKREF
Ok. Let me clarify. B23 intercepts a pass. At the 35 yd line B10 blocks A2 and they end up OOB and in the team B bench area. 10-15 team B players surround A2. Whooping it up. A2 is trying to get away, as he is, non-player A1 (think he means B1) jumps and gets in the face of B2 (think he means A2) and bumps him, A2 then shoves B1. All of this happens during the interception return for a touchdown, prior to the score. They are both live ball fouls.

So do we have two personal fouls? Or 1 PF, and 1 US?

2 PF's ... contact by each guilty party.
Nonplayer B1 bumps Player A2 - PF 9-4-3g, 10-4-5c & 8-2-4
A2 then shoves B1 durring B23's TD run - PF 9-4-3g, 8-2-2

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ump33

The term "opponent" is identified in Rule 2-43. It says nothing about the opponent has to be one of the 11 players only that the opponent is "the defense, B or R".

I looked there too, but it uses the word "opponent" only in terms of "the team". It doesn't say anything about which individuals compose a team. I could take it just as easily as limited to players as I could to include non-players. I've a feeling they meant it one way or the other, but not sure which.

After writing the above, I found something else that clarifies it in this case but leaves some similar scenarios vague: the definition of "substitute" in Fed 2-32-15, identifying him as a "team member". So it would make the action in the original case posed a personal foul (UR by a player vs. an opponent who is a substitute), but leave it unclear in the case of other non-players.